RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,148095,00.html
Too bad that the succes on the ground and at the local and regional levels hasn't translated into political sucsess.

quote:

Originally posted by goondawg:
RE: http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,148095,00.html
Too bad that the succes on the ground and at the local and regional levels hasn't translated into political sucsess.

One of the Bush Administrations problems over the years has been their inability to tout their successes.

I seem to recall another conflict where we took the ground, made it peaceful then gave it back over and over.

Success is in the eye of the beholder and me thinks that the american public is being blinded by smoke and mirrors. Success will be when no more of our boys die in Iraq.

Words are cheap: especially for the Bush Administration with its record of avoiding the truth.

Lets quantify the word "success" with verifiable statistics. From WMDs to TORTURE, the administration has told untruths.

Now going on five years is long enough. Bring the troops home !

quote:

Originally posted by helez:
Words are cheap: especially for the Bush Administration with its record of avoiding the truth.

Lets quantify the word "success" with verifiable statistics. From WMDs to TORTURE, the administration has told untruths.

Now going on five years is long enough. Bring the troops home !

Yes Helez, politicians were a moral beacon of light prior to GW taking office.

Who was that that invented the internet again?

Who was Love story based upon?

What was the definition of "is"?

quote:

Originally posted by hooah71:

quote:

Originally posted by helez:
Words are cheap: especially for the Bush Administration with its record of avoiding the truth.

Lets quantify the word "success" with verifiable statistics. From WMDs to TORTURE, the administration has told untruths.

Now going on five years is long enough. Bring the troops home !

Yes Helez, politicians were a moral beacon of light prior to GW taking office.

Who was that that invented the internet again?

Who was Love story based upon?

What was the definition of "is"?

Last time I checked no soldiers died using the internet...no matter who "invented" it. And the last administration didn't send 100's of thousands of soldiers into a meat grinder. How much did that "Love" story cost the taxpayers??? Certainly not as much as this Iraq fiasco........

quote:

quote:
Originally posted by hooah71:

quote:
Originally posted by helez:
Words are cheap: especially for the Bush Administration with its record of avoiding the truth.

Lets quantify the word "success" with verifiable statistics. From WMDs to TORTURE, the administration has told untruths.

Now going on five years is long enough. Bring the troops home ! Smile



Yes Helez, politicians were a moral beacon of light prior to GW taking office.

Who was that that invented the internet again?

Who was Love story based upon?

What was the definition of "is"?



Last time I checked no soldiers died using the internet...no matter who "invented" it. And the last administration didn't send 100's of thousands of soldiers into a meat grinder. How much did that "Love" story cost the taxpayers??? Certainly not as much as this Iraq fiasco........

yep when American soldiers were attacked during the last administration they left the country as soon as possible

quote:

Originally posted by mmulder67:

quote:

Originally posted by hooah71:

quote:

Originally posted by helez:
Words are cheap: especially for the Bush Administration with its record of avoiding the truth.

Lets quantify the word "success" with verifiable statistics. From WMDs to TORTURE, the administration has told untruths.

Now going on five years is long enough. Bring the troops home !

Yes Helez, politicians were a moral beacon of light prior to GW taking office.

Who was that that invented the internet again?

Who was Love story based upon?

What was the definition of "is"?

Last time I checked no soldiers died using the internet...no matter who "invented" it. And the last administration didn't send 100's of thousands of soldiers into a meat grinder. How much did that "Love" story cost the taxpayers??? Certainly not as much as this Iraq fiasco........

The last administration didn't hunt down our enemies after the 1993 W.T.C. bombings either.

Whats done can be un-done, that is always the issue.

I love how fox news pundits keep trumpeting 'normalcy returning to areas of Iraq': as if a state of military occupation by 160,000 troops from a half a world away could ever be construed as normalcy...

The training wheels have to come off at some point, thats when we can truely claim victory.

quote:

Originally posted by DirtDriver:

quote:

Originally posted by mmulder67:

quote:

Originally posted by hooah71:

quote:

Originally posted by helez:
Words are cheap: especially for the Bush Administration with its record of avoiding the truth.

Lets quantify the word "success" with verifiable statistics. From WMDs to TORTURE, the administration has told untruths.

Now going on five years is long enough. Bring the troops home !

Yes Helez, politicians were a moral beacon of light prior to GW taking office.

Who was that that invented the internet again?

Who was Love story based upon?

What was the definition of "is"?

Last time I checked no soldiers died using the internet...no matter who "invented" it. And the last administration didn't send 100's of thousands of soldiers into a meat grinder. How much did that "Love" story cost the taxpayers??? Certainly not as much as this Iraq fiasco........

The last administration didn't hunt down our enemies after the 1993 W.T.C. bombings either.

Well our "enemies" that bombed the W.T.C. aren't in Iraq so your argument is baseless. And how come we still haven't captured Osama??? If we spent half as much money and resources to finding him as we have spent in Iraq he would be in Gitmo by now. But then again Osama doesn't have anything of monetary value to those who decide our countries fate, like oil???????

In March 2003, the U.S. government announced that “diplomacy
has failed” and that the United States would proceed with a “coalition
of the willing” in order to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction
and overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime. In October
2002, Congress approved the “Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” It’s important to note, in light of the
divisions of today’s politics, that the resolution was overwhelmingly
approved (House 296 yes, 133 no; Senate 77 yes, 23 no). The grounds for
this action were cited thus: Iraq’s non-compliance with the conditions
of the 1991 ceasefire; development of WMD; the brutal oppression of
its civilian population; its capability and willingness to use WMD
against other nations and its own people (chemical weapons were used
against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians); their hostility toward
the United States, as demonstrated by the assassination attempt on
former President George H.W. Bush; their repeated firing on coalition
aircraft; and Iraq’s continuing aid and harboring of Al Qaeda and
other international terrorist organizations. With this vote, the United
States and Great Britain, along with military aid from dozens of other
nations, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 20, 2003.http://gxonline.com/past_issues/issues/gx4-7/08_why_we_are_there.pdf

This message has been edited. Last edited by: DirtDriver,

The nay sayers do come out strong when there is a little, and only a little, good news comes out.

Our President probably got this assessment from the same people who gave him the ammo to go to war. LOL

quote:

Originally posted by DirtDriver:
In March 2003, the U.S. government announced that “diplomacy
has failed” and that the United States would proceed with a “coalition
of the willing” in order to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction
and overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime. In October
2002, Congress approved the “Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” It’s important to note, in light of the
divisions of today’s politics, that the resolution was overwhelmingly
approved (House 296 yes, 133 no; Senate 77 yes, 23 no). The grounds for
this action were cited thus: Iraq’s non-compliance with the conditions
of the 1991 ceasefire; development of WMD; the brutal oppression of
its civilian population; its capability and willingness to use WMD
against other nations and its own people (chemical weapons were used
against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians); their hostility toward
the United States, as demonstrated by the assassination attempt on
former President George H.W. Bush; their repeated firing on coalition
aircraft; and Iraq’s continuing aid and harboring of Al Qaeda and
other international terrorist organizations. With this vote, the United
States and Great Britain, along with military aid from dozens of other
nations, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 20, 2003.

Well if that's the case we need to invade every country in the middle east because they ALL HARBOR TERRORISTS THAT HATE AMERICA. A nd most of the other "reasons" for invading Iraq have since been debunked. Iraq's involvement in attacking the U.S. are about as much as Syria's, Jordan's, Iran's, Pakistan's and on and on... but have we invaded those countries ?????

Guess I'm reading a different article... I got that the surge is making a positive... Guess I'd better read it again,,, I know, I know ,,, Sorry I'll start listening again to what I'm told.

Helez, We can not leave Iraq in it's current state. Wish all you want.


When a parent romoves the training wheels they are always right there in case the kid falls. Been my strategy since the Iraqi Government was formed. Back up let them do it. See how it goes. But do not pull out.

quote:

Originally posted by schmiddc:
Whats done can be un-done, that is always the issue.

I love how fox news pundits keep trumpeting 'normalcy returning to areas of Iraq': as if a state of military occupation by 160,000 troops from a half a world away could ever be construed as normalcy...

The training wheels have to come off at some point, thats when we can truely claim victory.

quote:

Originally posted by mmulder67:

quote:

Originally posted by DirtDriver:
In March 2003, the U.S. government announced that “diplomacy
has failed” and that the United States would proceed with a “coalition
of the willing” in order to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction
and overthrow Saddam Hussein and his Baathist regime. In October
2002, Congress approved the “Authorization for Use of Military Force
Against Iraq Resolution of 2002.” It’s important to note, in light of the
divisions of today’s politics, that the resolution was overwhelmingly
approved (House 296 yes, 133 no; Senate 77 yes, 23 no). The grounds for
this action were cited thus: Iraq’s non-compliance with the conditions
of the 1991 ceasefire; development of WMD; the brutal oppression of
its civilian population; its capability and willingness to use WMD
against other nations and its own people (chemical weapons were used
against Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians); their hostility toward
the United States, as demonstrated by the assassination attempt on
former President George H.W. Bush; their repeated firing on coalition
aircraft; and Iraq’s continuing aid and harboring of Al Qaeda and
other international terrorist organizations. With this vote, the United
States and Great Britain, along with military aid from dozens of other
nations, launched Operation Iraqi Freedom on March 20, 2003.

Well if that's the case we need to invade every country in the middle east because they ALL HARBOR TERRORISTS THAT HATE AMERICA. A nd most of the other "reasons" for invading Iraq have since been debunked. Iraq's involvement in attacking the U.S. are about as much as Syria's, Jordan's, Iran's, Pakistan's and on and on... but have we invaded those countries ?????

I'd like to add that most American politicians, who supported the resolution authorizing the use of military force, did so under the assumption that the resolution itself and not the actual use of force would produce the desired results. Few today will tell you that they would have expected the president to begin deploying troops to Iraq by March of 2003. There were simply bigger problems out there, like Osama bin Laden and the region wide conflict that he and others were popularizing.

Iraq is this sad little side note to our military response to the attacks of 9/11. We blundered. We walked into a country and started a war that has allowed the type of extremeists responsible for 9/11 to set up shop where they had previously found no foothold. Now they use Iraq to there advantage in a campaign that remains focused on recruiting willing warriors and common folks into a movement that seeks to wrestle control of the Middle East and its resources from those local powers that have been willing to work closely with the United States and other western nations.

Think they are not making progress on a political front? Look at the results of the recent elections in Turkey. A Muslim reformer will be the next senior political leader in that country. Hell, look at Maliki, he isn't exactly impressed with the might of America. That man has his own plans for Iraq, and we aren't likely to know exactly what they look like until all is said and done.

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, there is more to war than localized combat operations. We must be willing to understand the recruitment strategies of our enemy, in addition to their very real goals, if we are ever to produce an effective counter strategy.

Right now too many inhabitants of the Middle East are convinced that our presence does them damage. So long as this is what they believe, we are not going to see substantial progress. We simply don't have the manpower to convince the inhabitants of our good nature up close and personal. For this reason we must adopt an approach that is more far reaching than any deployment of military personnel can be.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: TinyTerror,

The surge is a total failure. it doesnt have the backing of either the Iraqi government or the Iraqi military. Our American government is quite simply interfering in the internal workings of a nation government as an occupying force. Hell, the Iraqi government doesnt give a damn, they're still on vacation, and the Iraqi Army isnt even anywhere near where the areas our armys are trying to pacify. Just another Vietnam all over again. Been there, done that, it's a failure. Hell, why would the Iraqi government officials and army leaders want to fight for their country? They might get killed and they wont be able to enjoythe money they are raiding from the Iraqi treasury thats being deposited in their secret Swiss bank acounts (Complements of the US taxpayers)

Deja vu here we go again,I ve got to read a bunch of Morons see how there always right ignore our soldiers in Iraq about what they think is working at the battle field while me and the rest of idiots (us)like my self claim to undestand what goes over there,all of this, while we drink a beer and ***removed*** at the same time with out ever worried about getting shot at Hello!! Hello!!
anybody home? Darn it boy!!!

Please watch your language
Mainedawg
Moderator

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mainedawg,